Search This Blog

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Federal Policy Top Priorities - 2017

The Washington office of the Christian Medical
Association (which hosts Freedom2Care) focuses on the fundamental issues of the right to life and freedom
of faith, conscience and speech, which serve as the foundation for all other rights
and freedoms. Following are some of the top priorities for the new year:

Freedom of faith and conscience

1.Protect
conscience rights in healthcare by restoring the conscience
protection regulationfor
healthcare professionals and institutions, along with its educational outreach program.

·Department
of State – AIDS Ambassador (PEPFAR), Office of International Religious
Freedom, Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, faith-based
office, Office of Religion and Global Affairs.

Presidential
appointments listing - “Plum Book” – http://tinyurl.com/plum16 - research specific positions for each agency. Google job titles to find
out more about the specifics of each position. Determine which of the
different types of positions (e.g., senate-confirmed, non-career senior
executive, etc.—see Types of Appointments list* below) in which you are
interested.

·Federal
registry on LinkedIn - keep your CV and
get updates on opportunities for federal service. On the www.LinkedIn.com
website (sign in or join for free), go to the search box, click the left arrow
and select Groups. Type in Freedom2Care. (If you have problems, just email washington@cmda.org
and ask to be added to the group.) How to import your CV to LinkedIn (http://tinyurl.com/h5q5yhk).
Visibility options: http://tinyurl.com/hg28oj5

*Types of Appointments:

Presidential Appointments with Senate
Confirmation (PAS):
1,212 senior leaders, including Cabinet secretaries and deputies, heads of
most independent agencies and ambassadors, who must be confirmed by the
Senate. These positions first require a Senate hearing in addition to
background checks and other vetting.

Non-career Senior Executive Service (NA): 680 key positions just below top
presidential appointees, bridging gap between political leaders and civil
service throughout the federal government. Most SES members are career
officials, but up to 10 percent of the SES can be political appointees.
(see https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-service).

Monday, November 7, 2016

Consider...

Besides the presidency, this election will determine the balance of power in the US Senate and House, the makeup of the future Supreme Court, plus many state governorships and legislators and local officials. ONE can make a huge difference:
•In 1801, one vote in the U.S. House broke the tie between presidential candidates Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.
•In 1876, one vote in the Electoral College gave Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency.
•In 2000, the presidency came down to a few votes in one state.

"My Election" tool

Who's running? Where do I vote? What's on the ballot?
Find out by entering your zip code at the Freedom2Care"My Election" tool
http://cqrcengage.com/f2c/home.
Thank you for exercising your privilege and duty as an American citizen! May God grant you wisdom and discernment as you help direct our government toward justice and mercy.

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

I've enjoyed the rare privilege of advising presidential campaigns on domestic and international healthcare issues. Below are some broad-stroke recommendations on domestic healthcare reform:

Returning Power to
the Patient

Transfer power from Governmentback to the People

As the
cost of government-centered healthcare punishes patients and doctors and wreaks
havoc on the economy and job market, Americans clearly need a new, patient-focused
healthcare reform movement. That movement must take power away from bureaucrats in Washington and return power to the
patient, medical decision-making to
doctors and proven principles of competition,
efficiency, innovation and quality assurance to American healthcare. The
following ten steps outline in broad strokes an approach that a new
administration and Congress can take to begin to build a healthcare system
driven by proven medical and economic principles.

Repeal costly regulations
and job-killing mandates

1.Make competition
for insurance customers national, so monopolistic insurance companies in
each state can no longer get away with charging high rates in the absence of
competition. Companies all across the country will be competing for customers
by offering customers the best coverage at the best price.

2.Promote tax-protected
health savings accounts, so the consumer takes back the driver's seat for her
own healthcare. Health savings accounts return insurance to what it was meant
to be—low-cost protection against big health crises that patients just couldn't
handle out of their own pockets.

3.Repeal the job-killing mandate of Obamacare and let employers hire back and add hours
to their employees. Health savings accounts will let employers continue to
contribute to their employees' healthcare while keeping costs manageable.

4.Make sure that patients
with preexisting conditions can get coverage through state high-risk pools and
that poor patients get the hand up
that they need—without wrecking everyone else's healthcare in the process.

Let doctors make
professional judgments
based on medicine and ethics

5.Repeal the time-killing, decision-robbing federal bureaucracy
of Obamacare and its tangled web of regulations and let doctors turn their attention away from mindless paperwork and
back to patients and making professional
medical judgments.

6.Eliminate Medicare
and Medicaid waste and fraud and restore reasonable and sustainable
reimbursement rates and funding, so poor patients will receive care and doctors
will receive adequate reimbursement for providing that care.

Streamline medicines and
promote price transparency

7.Enforce the bipartisan
conscience laws that protect some of our best doctors from discrimination
and job loss simply because they follow the Hippocratic oath and won't
participate in abortions, or because they base their decisions about
controversial treatments on medical evidence and not government social policy.

8.Follow the proven example of states that have
implemented sensible controls on
malpractice lawsuits. Patients with legitimate complaints must receive just
compensation, but ambulance-chasing lawyers should not be allowed to milk the
system with baseless cases that are more expensive to fight than settle.

9.Streamline affordablemedicines by incentivizing
innovation and eliminating needless costly regulations and delays in bringing
new lifesaving drugs to market.

10.Empower
patients and control spending by promoting price
transparency to enable consumers to comparison shop easily and make informed
decisions based on the actual cost of treatments.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

In over two decades of public policy advocacy in Washington, DC,
I have never witnessed such division among colleagues and people of faith as in
this polarizing election.

Taking a deep breath and a step back to remember some bedrock
biblical principles can help us navigate this tumultuous season. We can emerge
on the other side of the election with both our relationships and our
principles intact.

Consider the following passages and their implications for a time
such as this:

"For rulers are
not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil" (Romans 13:3).

Until
His heavenly kingdom finally comes in its full glory, God's fundamental purpose
for establishing government here on earth is to reward good and punish evil. So choose candidates who demonstrate by
their words and actions that they understand the difference between good and
evil and will govern accordingly. Otherwise it's a crapshoot on who and what gets rewarded
or punished. After years of cultural decay and the erosion of religious
liberties, people of faith are more vulnerable than ever to governing
authorities who reward evil and punish righteousness (for examples, see
www.Freedom2Care.org).

"I also do my
best to maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before men"
(Acts 24:16).

Pray for God's wisdom on voting and also be prepared to
explain to others how your reasons fit the faith. If you're voting for a
candidate with obvious flaws of character or policy, explain whatever higher
principle motivates you to vote despite the problems. Otherwise you risk
appearing to compromise your faith for expedience, personal preference or just
plain ignorance.

"Now accept the
one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his
opinions" (Romans 14:1).

Consider what your family and friends already
know: You are not always as wise and righteous as you wish you were. And your disagreeing
colleagues might not be as dumb or faithless as you think they are. So in humility
remember that each believer will each stand before God on the final day, and in
the meantime He has not appointed any of us as a surrogate judge.

"Or do you not
know that the saints will judge the world?" (1 Corinthians 6:2).

The Scriptures
and the Holy Spirit provide the Christian believer with an understanding of how
the King of the universe rules over His creation. He equips us with the ability
to discern and choose good over evil and to exercise the antidote of love to
counter the disease of enmity. God's Word illuminates this truth and power in a
way that natural revelation (the testimony that the created world provides to
its Creator and the voice of personal conscience He gives to each person) displays
only dimly.

That means Christians carry a special responsibility, as far
as within their power, to guide government toward good and away from evil. We
do so for the good of others, and especially for the vulnerable.

In a democratic republic, voting is our bare minimum responsibility.
Not voting represents a dereliction of duty and leaves governing to those who
do not benefit from God's clear revelation. That puts people at risk whom God calls
us to protect.

So if you know God's principles, vote for those who will
come closest to carrying out those principles. If you can't in good conscience vote
for a main party candidate for president, write in your choice and make sure to
also vote for U.S. Senators and Representatives and state and local officials.

Thursday, September 29, 2016

What do doctors and health institutions need to know about and
how can they defend themselves from the Obama administration’s newly enacted transgender mandate?

Action:

If you are a health
professional or institution impacted by the HHS transgender mandate, you may use this web page to present your views confidentially (or publicly if you prefer).

What happened when?

The transgender mandate, promulgated by the US Department of
Health and Human Services under the assumed authority of the Affordable Care
Act (Obamacare), went into effect July 18, 2016.

A new website, www.transgendemandate.org, explains what the mandate requires, why it
violates the law and what conscientious objectors can do to protect their
rights.

Whom does the rule target?

HHSrecently
mandatedthat
doctors must perform gender transition procedures onany child referred
by a mental health professional, even if the doctor believes the treatment or
hormone therapycould harm
the child.
Doctors who follow their Hippocratic Oath to act in the best interest of their patient instead of this new mandate can face severe consequences, including losing their job.

The Transgender Mandate also requires virtually all private insurance companies and many employers to cover gender transition procedures or face stiff penalties and legal action.

What do they have to do?

No religious exemption

The new rule includes no religious exemption; it will have significant impacts on religious healthcare professionals:

It will require healthcare professionals to refer individuals for gender transition services;

It will require healthcare professionals to provide insurance coverage for gender transition services, some of which include sterilization procedures;

It may require healthcare professionals to provide coverage for abortion;

It will require healthcare professionals to open facilities, such as showers, bathrooms, or locker rooms, to employees based on gender preference;

It will expose healthcare professionals to hostile work environment lawsuits unless healthcare professionals refer to individuals by their preferred name or gender pronoun.

What happens to those who do not comply?

A healthcare professional not in compliance risks:

Liable for lawsuits

losing HHS funding

being subjected to federal enforcement proceedings

being subjected to false claims liability

being sued for damages and attorneys’ fees by patients, employees, or their dependents.

What does the evidence show regarding gender transition procedures?

Research showsthat there are significant risks with gender transition procedures in childhood. Again, that is why HHS’s own medical board advised against requiring coverage of gender transition surgical procedures under Medicare and Medicaid.

Putting children at risk

Along with physical impacts like heart
conditions, increased cancer risk, and loss of bone density, the peer-reviewed
longitudinalstudies of
childrenwith
gender dysphoria (that HHS accepted as valid) found that fewer than 1-in-4
children referred for gender dysphoria continued to experience that condition
into adulthood. Some grew out of it, but many of the children ended up
realizing that they were not transgender but instead gay or lesbian.

The Transgender Mandate
virtually guarantees that doctors will be forced—against their medical judgment—to perform
procedures

aimed at altering the gender of children who are not actually transgender.

Medical scienceis on the side of any doctor who
feels that in a specific case it would be a mistake to begin gender transition
procedures on a child.

What about medical judgment?

No medical judgment

The Mandate does not allow space for the doctor’s medical judgment and does not even allow the doctor
to refer the child to another doctor, even one more qualified, or for a
hospital to find a doctor willing to perform the procedure. Any refusal by
a qualified and practicing doctor to perform such a procedure is a violation of
the Mandate.

To be clear, this is not a question of access to care but of
forcing a political ideology on doctors against their medical judgment.

Is anyone moving to stop this?

In August 2016, the Christian Medical Association; the
states of Texas, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Kentucky, and Kansas; North Texas State Hospital; Franciscan Alliance, Inc.; and
Specialty Physicians of Illinois, LLC filed a lawsuitagainst HHS in the US
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which boasts an
undefeated record in Supreme Court cases, represents the plaintiffs. The
lawsuit asks the court to do the following:

Declare that the challenged Regulation is invalid under
the Administrative Procedure Act;

Declare that the challenged Regulations is invalid
under the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act;

Declare that the challenged Regulation is invalid under
the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution;

Declare that the challenged Regulation is invalid under
the Fifth Amendment of the United
States Constitution;

Declare that the challenged Regulation is invalid under
the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution;

Issue a permanent
injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing the challenged Regulations
against Plaintiffs, those acting in concert with Plaintiffs, and all States;

Award actual damages;

Award nominal damages;

Award Plaintiffs the costs of this action and reasonable attorney’s fees; and

Award
such other and further relief as it
deems equitable and just.

Action:

If you are a health professional or institution impacted by the HHS transgender mandate, you may use this web page to present your views confidentially (or publicly if you prefer).

Friday, August 26, 2016

Assisted suicide advocates and their media allies would have us believe that taking
lethal pills somehow represents the supreme expression of individual choice (see for example, "Deciding
to use the end-of-life law," Los Angeles Times, Aug. 16). In reality, however, legalized
assisted suicide can lead down a quick and dangerous path to patient abuse and
the loss of autonomy.

What happens when government and corporate payers or
unscrupulous heirs calculate that your early death spells cost savings? The
"right to die" quickly morphs into a "duty to die," complete
with subtle and not-so-subtle psychological pressures on vulnerable patients.

Such abuses of elderly, handicapped and other vulnerable patients
will never show up in whitewashed, bare-bones bureaucratic reports. Secrecy
provisions in the law prevent independent investigations. The only witness is
dead.

Palliative care including powerful pain relief, coupled
with the unconditional and persevering love of family and friends, offer a priceless
alternative to cheap suicide pills and a safeguard of patient choice.

Washington, D.C. – Doctors, hospitals and five states will file a lawsuit today against a new federal regulation that would force doctors to ignore science and their medical judgment and perform gender transition procedures on children. The government does not even require Medicare and Medicaid to cover these same gender transition procedures because the Health & Human Services’ (HHS) medical experts found the risks were often too high and benefits too unclear. But any doctor citing the same evidence and their judgment in an individual case would be in violation of the new mandate and face potential lawsuits or job loss.

“No doctor should be forced to perform a procedure that he or she believes will harm a child,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “Decisions on a child’s medical treatment should be between families and their doctors, not dictated by politicians and government bureaucrats.”

A new website provides leading research on this issue, including guidance the government itself relies on demonstrating that up to 94 percent of children with gender dysphoria (77 to 94 percent in one set of studies and 73 to 88 percent in another) will grow out of their dysphoria naturally and will not need surgery or lifelong hormone regimens. Studies also show that there are numerous negative effects when children undergo hormone regimens, such as increased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and breast, ovarian, and prostate cancer.

The government itself does not require coverage of gender transition procedures in Medicare or Medicaid — even in adults — because it has acknowledged that such procedures can be harmful. This rule would be the first time a law forces doctors to break their Hippocratic Oath and is also unique in placing mental health professionals as the final decision-makers on what medical care doctors must provide for their patients.

The new regulation applies to 900,000 doctors — virtually every doctor in the U.S., many of whom have chosen the medical profession because they are inspired by their faith to serve those in need and to heal others. They have taken an oath to put the needs of each patient first and do no harm. But this regulation violates doctors’ ability to exercise both their best medical judgment and their religiously-inspired desire to care for society’s most vulnerable. It will also cost healthcare providers and taxpayers nearly $1 billion.

“This regulation is blatantly hypocritical: The government exempts coverage of gender transition procedures from Medicare or Medicaid because it admits that they may be harmful; but it then tries to force private doctors to perform the same procedures on young children,” said Windham.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty will file a lawsuit today in federal district court in Wichita Falls, Texas, on behalf of Franciscan Alliance, a religious hospital network sponsored by the Sisters of St. Francis of Perpetual Adoration, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, defending them from the new government regulation. The States of Texas, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Wisconsin also joined the Becket Fund’s legal challenge. More information can be found at www.transgendermandate.org.

For more information or to arrange an interview with a BecketFund attorney, please contact Melinda Skea atmedia@becketfund.orgor 202-349-7224. Interviews can be arranged in English, Chinese, French, German, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish.

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Both major political parties recently issued new platforms
that communicate contrasting core values to the American people. Following is a
breakdown of where each party stands on the life issues of particular concern
to readers of this blog: abortion, sex
education, embryos and stem cell research and assisted suicide:

Abortion

The Democrat party platform maintains
that “that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care
services, including safe and legal abortion” (p. 37).

The Republican party platform focuses
on “The Constitution’s guarantee that no one can ‘be deprived of life, liberty
or property’ deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation
that ‘all’ are ‘endowed by their Creator’ with the inalienable right to life”
(p. 13).

Democrats: “We
will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood
health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people”
(p.37).

“We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and
state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by
repealing the Hyde Amendment [which prohibits most government funding of
abortions]” (p. 37).

“We will support sexual and reproductive health and rights
around the globe. In addition to expanding the availability of affordable
family planning information and contraceptive supplies, we believe that safe
abortion must be part of comprehensive maternal and women’s health care and
included as part of America’s global health programming. Therefore, we support
the repeal of harmful restrictions that obstruct women’s access to health care
information and services, including the “global gag rule” and the Helms
Amendment that bars American assistance to provide safe, legal abortion
throughout the developing world” (p. 46).

Republicans: “We
oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund
organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for
elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare” (p.
13).

“We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes
abortion coverage” (p. 13).

“Because of [Democratic party] opposition to simple abortion
clinic safety procedures, support for taxpayer-funded abortion, and rejection
of pregnancy resource centers that provide abortion alternatives, the old
Clinton mantra of “safe, legal, and rare” has been reduced to just “legal” (p.
14).

Sex education

Democrats: “We
recognize that quality, affordable comprehensive health care, evidence-based sex
education and a full range of family planning services help reduce the number
of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions” (p.
37).

Embryos and stem cell research

Democrats: No
mention.

The 2012
platform had noted that “the President issued an executive order repealing
the restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.”

The 2008
platform had issued a call to “lift the current Administration's ban on
using federal funding for embryonic stem cells– cells that would have otherwise
have been discarded and lost forever–for research that could save lives.”

Republicans: “We
call for expanded support for the stem cell research that now offers the
greatest hope for many afflictions — through adult stem cells, umbilical cord blood,
and cells reprogrammed into pluripotent stem cells — without the destruction of
embryonic human life. We urge a ban on human cloning for research or
reproduction, and a ban on the creation of, or experimentation on, human
embryos for research” (pp. 37-38).

Assisted suicide and euthanasia

Democrats: No
mention.

Republicans: “We
oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including
food and water, from individuals with disabilities, newborns, the elderly, or
the infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide” (pp. 13-14).

Friday, July 15, 2016

One year ago the first of a series of videos showing Planned
Parenthood and fetal tissue brokers discussing harvesting and selling baby body
parts was released. In the months following, the House responded to the
information in the videos by voting to defund Planned Parenthood six times. The
House also passed a bill to protect babies who survive abortions and
established a Select Panel on Infant Lives to investigate.

Executive Summary

Select
Investigative Panel Interim Update to the House

I.Congress
Created the Select Investigative Panel

a.Following
the release of undercover videos documenting shocking admissions and graphic
footage of abortion clinics and so-called “tissue procurement companies,”
Congress initiated hearings and subsequently created a Select Investigative
Panel to carry out an in-depth investigation into the allegations revealed by
the videos. The primary allegation was that abortion clinics received a payment
for aborted babies’ body parts from tissue procurement companies who then
resold those parts for researchers.

II.Formation
of the Investigative Plan- Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Commissions

a.Federal
Laws that Address the Treatment of Women and Children

i.There
are guidelines in place meant to prevent the callous treatment of women and
children whose privacy and well-being the Panel’s investigation reveals are
being violated. Among them are the Born Alive Protection Act, the Belmont
Report, the findings of several Presidential Commissions on bioethics, the
HIPAA Privacy Rule, the Common Rule, Institutional Review Board Regulations,
and federal statutes. Investigative evidence shows that the motive for
disregarding these safeguards is financial gain. Abortion clinics remedy these
problems by, among other activities, overbilling the government for Medicaid
reimbursements and, more disturbingly, profiting from the sale of the leftover
body parts of babies they have just aborted.

b.Federal
Statutes Governing the Transfer of Human Fetal Tissue

i.The
NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. § 289g-1 and 42 U.S.C. § 289g-2):
Rep. Waxman, a Democrat, offered the amendment to the NIH Revitalization Act of
1993 that governs the donation of fetal tissue, specifically §289 g-2(a). It
states that “it shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive,
or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the
transfer affects interstate commerce.”

ii.The
Statute Informed the Panel’s Investigative Plan: The main point of the Panel’s
inquiry centered on this question: If fetal tissue is transferred from one
entity to another, does the transfer violate the intent of §289 g-2? To answer
this question, the Panel has analyzed four business models currently operating
in the market sector and one operating in the public sector: 1) The Middleman
Model; 2) The University/Clinic Model; 3) The Biotech Company/Clinic Model; 4)
The Late-Term Clinic Model; and 5) The Government Funded Research Model.

iii.Fetal
Tissue Sales and Abortion Clinic Fiscal Problems: Although abortion providers
and abortion rights advocates have a long history of stating that “it’s not
about the money” but about women’s reproductive health, the Panel’s
investigation has produced evidence that financial interests are increasingly
driving management and clinical practice decisions.

III.The
Ethics of Fetal Tissue

a.Amazing
scientific and biomedical advances are continuously being discovered and
developed. Congress, research institutions, and the medical community must
continue to work together to promote medical advancements while simultaneously
ensuring that laws and regulations on ethics remain up to date. On March 2,
2016, the Panel held a hearing entitled Bioethics and Fetal Tissue. The
hearing focused on ethical issues raised as a result of information recently
made public about fetal tissue donations, transfer of fetal tissue, and use of
fetal tissue by research institutions.

IV.Case
Studies of the Fetal Tissue Industry

a.At
a hearing on The Pricing of Fetal Tissue, the Panel compared documents
produced from StemExpress, LLC, a for-profit business, to the applicable
federal statute. StemExpress obtains fetal tissue from abortion clinics and
offers it for resale to researchers. The documents show that StemExpress
embedded employees within a group of abortion clinics to procure fetal tissue,
and those employees then shipped the tissue to customers. StemExpress paid the
abortion clinics a per-tissue fee for each tissue its employees procured, plus a
per-tissue bonus to StemExpress employees.

V.Biomedical
Research and Fetal Tissue

a.The
Panel’s investigation has produced a fact-based picture of the history,
utility, and uses of fetal tissue in biomedical research. The importance of
fetal tissue has been mischaracterized by political rhetoric. The Panel
continues to seek ethical methods for the conduct of important research to find
treatment and cures for injuries and disease.

VI.Compliance
with Congressional Subpoenas

a.At
least four entities from whom the Panel requested documents have failed to
fully comply with the Panel’s requests. As a result, the Panel was forced to
serve subpoenas on Southwestern Women’s Options, the University of New Mexico,
Advanced Bioscience Resources, and StemExpress. However, none of these entities
have complied with their subpoenas, making it impossible for the Panel to fully
conduct its investigation. In some cases, the Panel has been made aware,
through other sources, of documents missing from productions. The absence of
these important documents raises the concern that others are missing as well.